ArticleToxicology reports2017
Single dose activated charcoal for gut decontamination: Application by medical non-professionals -a prospective study on availability and practicability.
Article in Toxicology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Correlation of osmolal gap with measured concentrations of acetone, ethylene glycol, isopropanol, methanol, and propylene glycol in patients at an academic medical center.Toxicology reports · 2020Article
- The Use of Activated Charcoal to Treat Intoxications.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019Review
- Diet-Related Metabolic Perturbations of Gut Microbial Shikimate Pathway-Tryptamine-tRNA Aminoacylation-Protein Synthesis in Human Health and Disease.International journal of tryptophan research : IJTR · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextOral activated charcoal (AC) for toxin absorption should be applied as soon as possible. Extra-hospital AC-application on site by medical laypersons with pre-emptive obtained AC may save time, but may be inferior to AC-application by medical professionals.
objective1) Availability and incidence of pre-emptive stockpiling of AC on site in the German region Bavaria 2) time saved by AC-stockpiling and application on site, 3) quality of AC-application defined by completeness of the applied AC-dose, time needed, incidence of side-effects in lay-care and in professional-care, considering confounding variables: AC-formulation/powder/tablets, recommended AC-dose, patient's age.
methodtelephone-interviews in cases with AC-recommendation by a Poison Information Centre (PIC). Lay-care was suggested according to risk-assessment by PIC. Ingestion sites were classified as either apt for AC-stockpiling or not apt.
results1) availability: In Bavaria only 20%-22% of eligible cases had AC on-hand, 2) time-saving was at least 14 min. 3) Lay-care/professional-care or patient's age had no significant influence on the completeness of the applied AC-dose, which was higher with AC as powder but negatively correlated with the recommended AC-dose. No significant difference was seen with time needed for application and incidence of side-effects.
conclusionpre-emptive AC-stocking should be encouraged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.